On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 10:58 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > The feature process is as good as feature pages itself. And it's same > with trust. We can only trust feature owners to provide all relevant > information (and same applies for submitting features). If you take a look > on New Installer UI feature page, it's clear, talks about a new UI, > it's there. It matches the description. Note that it has been changed to reflect several of the identified inadequacies. IIRC, at the time the feature was approved, it had no mention of at least the following: * The change to only allowing one desktop environment to be installed interactively * The change to not requiring a root password to be set * The change to raw ext4 rather than LVM as the default partition scheme * The fact that anaconda would no longer handle upgrades but an entirely new tool would be written for this There were probably others, those are ones I recall. These four things alone are clearly major changes that merited discussion beyond the anaconda team and should have been at least explicitly included in the newUI feature and, in the fedup case, probably split out as its own feature. An entirely new upgrade mechanism which obsoletes both our old ones is clearly not an implementation detail, as we learned. Again, not to level accusations at anyone, just to clearly identify an area where the process clearly did not achieve what ideally it ought to have achieved. For the record, this link is the newUI feature page as it existed at the time FESCo approved the feature: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Features/NewInstallerUI&oldid=289955 -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
